Non-supply of material relied upon and verbatim reproduction of dossier vitiate preventive detention.

Facts

The petitioner was detained by Respondent No. 2 via Order No. 07/DMB/PSA/2025 dated 29.04.2025 under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, on grounds of acting against the "security of State"

Source reference: p. 1-2

The grounds of detention relied on three FIRs from 2012, 2015, and 2018

Source reference: p. 2

The petitioner challenged the order on grounds of non-application of mind, reliance on stale incidents, verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, and non-supply of relevant materials

Source reference: p. 2

Issues

1. Whether the detaining authority exhibited non-application of mind by failing to consider the petitioner’s bail and acquittal status in the cited FIRs

Source reference: p. 4-5/para. 10

2. Whether the detention order is vitiated by reliance on stale incidents lacking a proximate link to the purpose of detention

Source reference: p. 5/para. 11

3. Whether the failure to supply relied-upon materials and the cryptic rejection of the representation violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution

Source reference: p. 7-8/para. 13-16

Law Applied

The court applied Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which mandates the communication of grounds and supply of all relied-upon material to enable an effective representation

Source reference: p. 7

It relied on Jai Singh v. State of J&K, establishing that verbatim reproduction of a police dossier signifies non-application of mind

Source reference: p. 4

Principles from Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra were applied regarding the necessity of considering vital facts like bail

Source reference: p. 5

The doctrine of "proximate nexus" from Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana and Golam Hussain v. Commissioner of Police was cited to prohibit detention based on stale incidents

Source reference: p. 5-6

Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal was applied to emphasize the duty of the state to consider representations expeditiously and meaningfully

Source reference: p. 8

Reasoning

The court found that the grounds of detention were a verbatim copy of the police dossier, indicating that the District Magistrate did not independently assess the case

Source reference: p. 4/para. 9

Crucially, the detaining authority ignored that the petitioner had been granted bail in two cases and acquitted in a third, which are vital facts for subjective satisfaction

Source reference: p. 5/para. 10

The court observed that incidents from 2012–2018 were too remote to justify detention in 2025, thus breaking the required "live link"

Source reference: p. 5/para. 11

Furthermore, the respondents failed to provide the petitioner with copies of the dossier, seizure memos, or Section 161 CrPC statements, rendering his right to representation illusory

Source reference: p. 7/para. 12-14

The government’s rejection of the petitioner’s representation was deemed "cryptic" and "mechanical," violating constitutional safeguards

Source reference: p. 8-9/para. 15-16

Holding

The court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the procedural and substantive safeguards of Article 22(5) were breached

The High Court quashed Detention Order No. 07/DMB/PSA/2025 and directed the immediate release of the petitioner from preventive custody, provided he is not required in any other case

Source reference: p. 9/para. 17